ArticleMemorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz2026
A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of the current standard of care and of the haematology analyser XN31-microscopy combination for diagnosing malaria in a nonendemic country.
Article in Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe biological diagnosis of imported malaria cases is a challenge that requires efficient methods, trained staff and high-quality proficiency. Microscopy, rapid diagnosis tests and molecular tests are widely available and provide excellent results. New methods such using haematology analysers have been recently developed.
objectivesIn the context of limited resources, a complete cost-effectiveness analysis of the different scenarios should aid in the decision-making process for the most appropriate methods.
methodsThe full cost-effectiveness of each malaria diagnosis scenario relative to the clinical benefits of the outcome was measured. The study population was a cohort of patients who were receiving health care at Lyon University Hospital for suspected malaria during 2023. Four scenarios were tested: microscopy, rapid diagnosis test + microscopy combination, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) + microscopy combination, all identified as the control tests, and haematology analyser XN-31 + microscopy combination, identified as the intervention. The direct costs were calculated based on prices paid in France for material and consumables needed to perform malaria diagnosis for one sample among 1000 tests per year. The indirect cost of technical training, supervision and quality proficiency was calculated based on the hourly salary of the laboratory technician, junior and senior doctors according to the time needed for each scenario.
findingsThis approach provides a global approach for determining the cost-effectiveness of the most frequent scenarios for diagnosing malaria. The diagnosis accuracy and the short time-to-result of the haematology analyser combined with microscopy were the key points of the cost-effectiveness result. MAIN
conclusionThe generalisability of our findings is restricted by the specificity of the costs observed in France and the limited panel of methods tested. However, this may promote similar studies from other countries to document the cost-effectiveness of the different scenarios used for malaria diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.